Related
Options

Issues with all Garmin HR

Yakyakgoose
over 4 years ago

I signed up specifically to make this post, thats the level of my annoyance at this point.

First, some history of my time with Garmin. I have been a Garmin Fenix user since the 3 series, always buying the top end version. I had to do 2 warranty claims on the 3 series until I got one that worked. I then got a 5x Plus which crapped out on me last week just out of warranty. Garmin gave me a consolation prize of 20% off a new model. I went with the Garmin Tactix Delta which is basically a Garmin Fenix 6 with additional bells and whistles. I also use a Garmin Inreach mini.

On to the HR. The HR on Garmin has always been pretty poor, but I bought into the excuse Garmin always had that it was a limitation of the tech. My Fenix 5 would always top out between 110 and 120 regardless of what I was doing. But at least it gave me a good calorie estimate based on daily activeness when not doing a workout. Based on things I read, I had hopes that the fenix 6 series would improve this a bit. Wrong. So..So...Wrong. After several days with the 6 (tactix), I noticed that my HR had not been tagged above 100 for anything, very odd compared to my 5. So then I started testing, purposely getting my HR up and then sitting still to see if it would rise. Nothing...would not go above 90. I even shaved the hair on my arm where the watch sits and tried it at different pressures above my wrist. Well- since I cant get crap for my fenix 5 I still have it and the HR function is still working. I repeated the same procedure with the fenix 5 on and it topped out around 118. Consistent with what I have seen in the past. At this point I remember that my wife has a new apple watch. So I slap a pink watch on my wrist and redo the exercise...150bpm. And before I'm accused of being an apple fanboy, I dont own a single apple device. Windows and Android.

So now I have proved to myself that a $1400 (yes, I got the ballistics version) watch cant do the basic thing that most of the calculations of the watch are based on without a HR strap. Just think about it. All the advertised constant metrics ..stress, sleep, etc....are most likely off. Unless it is accurate below its limit. But who knows at this point. Unless you have a HR strap on there's no way to tell. ANNND Garmin has been hiding behind the "limited technology excuse" but that has now fallen apart as someone else has accurate heart rate tech out there. At this point, Ive spent almost $3k on garmin watches and it's always started or ended with disappointment.

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to had746

    Ok tough guy. 

    Maybe its people just like me who dont usually participate in forums but get so pissed off that they finally feel the need to let people know. Being a fanboy of a brand doesnt do anyone any favors. If apple or anyone else for that matter has pushed beyond them in this tech either through sensors or logarithms they need to step it up. I can only tell you the excuses Ive heard over the years from them of why my watches have not worked as advertised. Hey - maybe i managed to get every dud they had. I SINCERELY HOPE so as there is not a use case replacement on the market that will work for me. 

    I spoke to Garmin after I typed that original post and had the exact convo with the rep as he insisted this wasn't across the board. I told him I hope so but I have significant doubts based on Ive had at least 4 fenix watches in my hands over the years and none of them had any sort of accuracy over 120bpm. There's enough people on the net that have this issue that no one needs to make it up.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    Easy dude. My Garmin Fenix 6X give me quite a reliable HR reading. I once had it locked to my pedals stroke while cycling and it was after a stop when my HR slowed to about 80 and when I started again it got stucked on my pedal stroke ~85. Understeanding how it works, I simply stopped and in a matter of 10-20seconds it started locking on my real HR at about 130bpm. This was special circumstances and it never happened again. Wrist based HRM can lock to the movement of your arms and activities like rowing are known to be more problematic. But other wrist-based HRM also have that issue. For me and for most people this is a non-issue. When it happens it is easy to get our of that situation by just pausing the movement, let the HRM lock to your real HR again and then go on. So unless you do a lot of activities where your HR is close to your cadence this should not happen all the time. Anyhow let's not pretend your situation is prevailing 

    That said if you need extra accuracy there is no doubt a HRM strap which is based on electrical HR activity, is more accurate and reliable so you can always use one of those.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    Thanks Allallin - When I get the new one in Ill test before and after updating software to see if there is a difference and report back.

    This isn't even during a strenuous activity. I would consider myself a multi year power user and understand how the watches work. We are talking about just walking up a steep hill. Like I said, I sent multiple fenix 3's back thinking something was wrong and was told there was tech limitations. It still filled enough of my use case at that price point to keep. The fenix 5 did seem to improve like I said it tracked me as long as i didnt go above 120ish...then it would crash down to the 60s. Now, dropping $1400 on a watch and have it act worse than the 5. No way. And like I said I used it for several days, it wasn't a 10 second glitch and I compared them all against each other. I dont doubt that yours works for you. But there is obviously something going on here because Ive been aware of this back and forth for years on the net without participating. Maybe you need a certain bf%, who knows..but if we cant even have a convo about it there will never be insight created. Even if it something to do with my physical makeup - the apple worked. But Apple cant solve my use case.

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to Yakyakgoose

    The problem is that sometimes WHR works quite well and other times, without explanation or justification it simply doesn't. Unless you have a chest strap for comparison you may simply not realise the inaccuracy.

    Here is recent example of walking casually with empty hands. I wore a chest strap linked to my 5X+ and used WHR with my 6X. For the first 28 minutes the two track reasonably well - close enough not to be troubled. From 28 minutes onwards the WHR just gives up. Literally nothing changed in my style of walking or the terrain. As fit as I am, I cannot walk in wellington boots on muddy ground with a heart rate of 55.

    I can find examples where the match is better, but this illustrates very well the random nature of WHR accuracy. For my purposes I make do with it for mooching around the house and walking, but for actual sport I'll always use a strap. I wouldn't trust the watch for such things.

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to eezytiger

    I agree with your last statement, and thats how I used the 5. But with the 6, it no longer was tracking the around the house and walking. Thanks for the charts - Interesting stuff.

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    While WHR seems to work for me (I see over 170bpm etc) my issue is I’m not sure if I trust what I’m seeing, but in most cases “good enough” seems to suffice. (I’ve used Polar and Garmin straps for 15-20 years cycling etc).

    The problem with something like the fenix is that while it is expensive and does a LOT of things, it doesn’t seem to do many of them particularly well, Jack of all trades, master of none if you will.

    The basic rule of thumb seems to be

    - if you want accurate HR, get a HR strap.

    - if you want accurate pace, get a foot pod

    - if you want accurate temp readings, get an external sensor

    - if you want accurate GPS, maybe get something else...

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to Tim_B_

    I completely agree. That’s the reason why I happily purchased an HR strap, a foot pod, a Tempe and I also carry my iPhone with preloaded maps. Life is too short to hope for a sport watch to perform flawlessly in all those fields, all in a single device. 
    My watch is now a hub for better sensors when a serious activity requires serious data. I wear no external sensors just for easy walks in town.